Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Geek

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:04Z

[edit] Free Geek

Free Geek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Although it looks good this article appears not to show notability --Alex 10:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep because there seems to be sources out there, just not in the article. Secateur 15:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Man, I hate to vote weak delete, because I think it's a cool concept, and I followed the link and I'll probably get a free 'pooter from them (well, in exchange for some work), but it looks like this article exists more for publicity rather than due to the organization being particularly notable at this point, I'd probably switch the vote if I saw third-party press references, not just links to their web sites. Keep looks like citations have been added. Tubezone 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with the comments of Tubezone above. Delete--Alex 15:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as the http://www.freegeek.org/media.php page shows loads of media references going back more than 6 years. Sourcing should be no problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, provided that media references are added. Otherwise, Delete. Charlie 21:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Media references and a personal sourcing added. --K7aay 09:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: At least 8 other non-profits across the country base their operations on the Free Geek non-profit/GPL/OpenSource model. I think it's a great thing to have an entry in Wikipedia! They typically run barely day-to-day able to pay non-profit part-time wages to a handful of 3/4 time staff. 200+ monthly volunteers. I don't see how a little more information about them hurts. I heard today, that they have been prodded to update the entry with more background material. And several people have stepped up to update it in the next few days. --Iain 09:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.